Claudia Anzini Annotation 5 3/14/14 The Corporation Word Count: 1,111
1. Title, director, and release year?
The Corporation. Directed by Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbott. Released 2003.
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The main narrative of this film is to unmask the corporation and bring all the problems they cause into the light. The film follows many prominent events throughout history that corporations have played a part in and even interviewed people involved in these events. Others interviewed include activists, documentary makers, government officials, college professors, and CEOs. The goal of the film is to bring the injustices that corporations have been getting away with, such as pollution and tax evasion, to the forefront and encourage viewers to get involved.
3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
This film did a very good job of presenting its information in a way that viewers could easily follow along. It used interviews and stories to grab the audience’s attention and support the claims it was making. It also did a good job of keeping the opinions to fact ratio pretty evenly matched. Scientific information was not necessarily provided, but good data and data trends were presented and at times left up to the interpretation of the viewer. The film at times also had some emotional appeal. To keep from coming off as cold, events and stories that were relatable to most viewers were presented.
4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out; political, legal, economic, technological, media and informational,organizational, educational, behavioral, cultural, or ecological?
This film touched on almost all sustainability problems as a result of the power a corporation has. While these problems may not have been directly stated as sustainability problems, they all contribute in some way or another. Corporations have their hands in government and if they operate or present themselves as operating legally, then they will be able to continue to use their government connections. They control a large portion of the economy and without them, the economy could collapse. Many of the practices a corporation employs are also negatively impacting the environment. Since smaller companies, who have sustainable practices and products are being overshadowed by affordable and name-brand products of the big corporations. Overall, if corporations keep operating under the same pretenses, it could lead to an economic or ecological collapse in the United States.
5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
The first-hand account of stories was what really grabbed my attention. Specifically, the reaction of Fox News to the story about Monsanto’s milk containing growth hormones. It felt the most relatable to me, not only on a consumer level, but also directly affected a career path my education could take me down. Learning that practices like this occur and hearing that cover-ups as high as the news station reporting them make me question the consumer information I have access to. It made me concerned that corporations are covering up more issues that directly affect me the consumer and I might never have access to the information that could prevent illness or environmental damage.
6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
The film itself didn't contain material that was not convincing so much as it just contained too much information. I felt like I was being bombarded my facts, figures, and solutions with no time to process what was going on. This film would have been better set as a small film series focusing on one issue of a corporation at a time, with a possible additional film to tie everything together. With all this information, I felt like I lost relevant stories and facts and in the end wanted more for the movie just to end than to hear a conclusion to it all.
7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?
I feel that this film, while probably meant to target a wide variety of audience, is best suited for an audience with a high educational background and the means to help enact change. The film was very heavy with information and a push to get consumers and the government involved. So someone with the power to get involved with the government and actually help change things would be a good target for this film. On some level all consumers would benefit from a film like this to help them start making more informed consumer decisions, but with all the information present, the message might get lost on some viewers.
8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
The film as it is a great educational tool. To enhance its environmental educational value, it would need to focus more on the environmental impact corporations are having on society or at least try to tie all of the impacts back into the ecological destruction they are causing.
9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
The biggest point of information the film suggested is just getting involved and finding your voice in this battle. If you can, work with local governments to enact change. If that is too far out of your reach, become a smarter consumer. Do your research on the products you are purchasing, how they are made, the company’s impact on the environment as the product is being produced, and the impact the product itself will cause once it is used. Better informed consumers can drive the market towards more environmentally-friendly products and companies. After watching this film, the consumer can’t helped but be even slightly more informed about certain company practices, and even if they don’t do major research on where their products are coming from, it will help them think twice before they pick something up off the shelf solely based on its price.
10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)
One of the most interesting stories within the film for me was about the hormones in Monsanto’s milk products. I did some research to find that even today, their milk products, along with many other companies’ milk still contain hormones. They have since tried to place hormone-free or rBGH free lables on their products. Some states have been battling to get these stickers removed, as it leads to false consumer information. Few have succeeded, with Kansas having the most success in 2009 banning these labels as “false and misleading.”
Annotation 5
3/14/14
The Corporation
Word Count: 1,111
1. Title, director, and release year?
The Corporation. Directed by Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbott. Released 2003.
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The main narrative of this film is to unmask the corporation and bring all the problems they cause into the light. The film follows many prominent events throughout history that corporations have played a part in and even interviewed people involved in these events. Others interviewed include activists, documentary makers, government officials, college professors, and CEOs. The goal of the film is to bring the injustices that corporations have been getting away with, such as pollution and tax evasion, to the forefront and encourage viewers to get involved.
3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
This film did a very good job of presenting its information in a way that viewers could easily follow along. It used interviews and stories to grab the audience’s attention and support the claims it was making. It also did a good job of keeping the opinions to fact ratio pretty evenly matched. Scientific information was not necessarily provided, but good data and data trends were presented and at times left up to the interpretation of the viewer. The film at times also had some emotional appeal. To keep from coming off as cold, events and stories that were relatable to most viewers were presented.
4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out; political, legal, economic, technological, media and informational,organizational, educational, behavioral, cultural, or ecological?
This film touched on almost all sustainability problems as a result of the power a corporation has. While these problems may not have been directly stated as sustainability problems, they all contribute in some way or another. Corporations have their hands in government and if they operate or present themselves as operating legally, then they will be able to continue to use their government connections. They control a large portion of the economy and without them, the economy could collapse. Many of the practices a corporation employs are also negatively impacting the environment. Since smaller companies, who have sustainable practices and products are being overshadowed by affordable and name-brand products of the big corporations. Overall, if corporations keep operating under the same pretenses, it could lead to an economic or ecological collapse in the United States.
5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
The first-hand account of stories was what really grabbed my attention. Specifically, the reaction of Fox News to the story about Monsanto’s milk containing growth hormones. It felt the most relatable to me, not only on a consumer level, but also directly affected a career path my education could take me down. Learning that practices like this occur and hearing that cover-ups as high as the news station reporting them make me question the consumer information I have access to. It made me concerned that corporations are covering up more issues that directly affect me the consumer and I might never have access to the information that could prevent illness or environmental damage.
6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
The film itself didn't contain material that was not convincing so much as it just contained too much information. I felt like I was being bombarded my facts, figures, and solutions with no time to process what was going on. This film would have been better set as a small film series focusing on one issue of a corporation at a time, with a possible additional film to tie everything together. With all this information, I felt like I lost relevant stories and facts and in the end wanted more for the movie just to end than to hear a conclusion to it all.
7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?
I feel that this film, while probably meant to target a wide variety of audience, is best suited for an audience with a high educational background and the means to help enact change. The film was very heavy with information and a push to get consumers and the government involved. So someone with the power to get involved with the government and actually help change things would be a good target for this film. On some level all consumers would benefit from a film like this to help them start making more informed consumer decisions, but with all the information present, the message might get lost on some viewers.
8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
The film as it is a great educational tool. To enhance its environmental educational value, it would need to focus more on the environmental impact corporations are having on society or at least try to tie all of the impacts back into the ecological destruction they are causing.
9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
The biggest point of information the film suggested is just getting involved and finding your voice in this battle. If you can, work with local governments to enact change. If that is too far out of your reach, become a smarter consumer. Do your research on the products you are purchasing, how they are made, the company’s impact on the environment as the product is being produced, and the impact the product itself will cause once it is used. Better informed consumers can drive the market towards more environmentally-friendly products and companies. After watching this film, the consumer can’t helped but be even slightly more informed about certain company practices, and even if they don’t do major research on where their products are coming from, it will help them think twice before they pick something up off the shelf solely based on its price.
10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)
One of the most interesting stories within the film for me was about the hormones in Monsanto’s milk products. I did some research to find that even today, their milk products, along with many other companies’ milk still contain hormones. They have since tried to place hormone-free or rBGH free lables on their products. Some states have been battling to get these stickers removed, as it leads to false consumer information. Few have succeeded, with Kansas having the most success in 2009 banning these labels as “false and misleading.”
Citations
"Finally, Huge Victory Against Monsanto Milk." Mercola Article . N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Mar. 2014. <http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/11/25/finally-huge-victory-against-monsanto-milk.aspx>.
"GRACE Communications Foundation." GRACE Communications Foundation. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Mar. 2014. <http://www.sustainabletable.org/797/rbgh>.